The Counterrevolution: Conclusion
Reactionaries dream of one thing and one thing only: the counterrevolution. Historically defined as a return to pre-French Revolution norms, or, in philosophical terms, the reassertion of the rule of law over the law of the majority, establishing the reign of the sacred over in place of the reign of materialism, and the reestablishment of proper hierarchy, displacing the sham hierarchies that have replaced it. Attempts, most notably those of the Holy Alliance and the National movements, have failed, and we explored possible reasons why they did.
If the counterrevolution is to take place at the national level and in a blitzkrieg (keeping in mind that both of these are contestable), then the model to follow is George Soros’. Through the collective efforts of a handful of wealthy individuals, a cohort of counterrevolutionaries will be elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives. This cohort will run on a platform of economic populism, going beyond both traditional right and left, and specifically on issues that have a supermajority support. Once the plurality of counterrevolutionaries come into office, having turned the spigots off for the multinationals and for locally and family-owned businesses, then a reactionary political revolution can occur.
With the regime bankrupt, and with all possible opposition from media, military, and NGOs quashed, regime politicians can be tried by people’s tribunals and, with this as a pretext, a new government can be ushered in.
Each of these steps, as we have seen in this series, are possible. No step in this program is unrealistic for the devoted. Will this occur overnight? No. Likely, the counterrevolution will take around a decade to simmer. Raising money (from high profile donors, NOT the general public keep in mind), running feasibility studies on platforms, and legal strategy for a feat of this magnitude will take time and cannot be rushed. Yet, if you truly desire a counterrevolution then by following this formula you will achieve your desire.
Proof of Concept
Do you want proof? Look at the sucess of George Soros. Has he not revolutionized the criminal justice system? Imagine seven or eight of Soroses. “But”, it will be protested, “he is on the left while we are on the right”. That is why you are running on economic populism, and not rightism. Everywhere economic populism has been tried, it has led to, at least, electoral success. Look at William Jennings Bryan. He wanted a shift from the gold standard to the silver standard so that more money could be printed and distributed to the working class. Did we get the silver standard? No. We got something Bryan was too timid to ask for…fiat currency. Bryan’s demands were answered ten-fold. Huey Long is another great example. He was elected governor for four terms on a platform of economic populism, and only lost after he drifted away from his winning strategy. Donald Trump in 2016 is another example. During the 2015 campaign his economic platform transcended right and left and led him to win states and counties that have not been won since Reagan. Did he deliver? No. He, for various reasons, caved to standard GOP economics, but his electoral success, when he ran on economic populism, is clear. What I am proposing is not wish-fulfillment or vain speculation but based upon successful models.
Possible Objections
There is the question, however, of whether or not this national blitzkrieg is desirable. It could be argued that a swift shift in government structure would further divide the already polarized United States. A gradual approach, by which the country is drawn slowly towards the right might prevent violent division. Yet again, gradualism might produce more opposition because it would give the left and the center more time to mount a resistance. It might also be argued that national elections are too expensive and competitive and that taking over state by state might be a more feasible option. To this it might be responded that unless the federal government is coopted, state-based resistance is bound to go the way of the Canadian Truckers. Finally, it might be suggested that what is needed is not a reactionary government but one that unites all factions into a common Americanism whose goal is to raise all up to a standard of dignity befitting a human person…in other words, genuine, not tactical, populism. I lean towards this personally, and God willing, will be writing a book on this topic, but the argument against this is that America is too divided for any reconciliation and that one side needs to prevail.
A Successful Objection
A more practical objection to the plan I have laid out is that a gradual, state by state approach, will enrich our allies. How? If members of the counterrevolutionary 501c are paid commission for each donation, then a crop of “our guys” can be recruited for one to two-year contracts, after which their commission money could be used to start their own businesses. Let us say that every 501c member earns 5% on each donation. Further, let us assume that the minimum donation sought is $10,000. This means that for each donation solicitated, the 501c worked earns $5,000. A 501c position need not be full time, as only a couple hours a week is needed to bring in donations. After one or two years, if the 501c member is wise, or if directed to do so by his/her boss, then this money can either be put into savings or invested in stocks. With the accumulated savings, a business could be opened. After one business is opened, the next 501c member who completes his contract could then open a business that caters to the pervious. For example, a farm could cater to a restaurant, or a steel mill could cater to a construction company. Over time these businesses will stack until markets are cornered. Simultaneously, states will be liberated from the regime and various markets will be taken over by “our guys.” This is the most powerful argument against the model I have proposed, and one I find convincing. Yet, although I find this objection convincing, I still wish to provide a model for a national blitzkrieg in case that one of you wonderful subscribers (and you are wonderful) have it in you to pull of such a feat.
With the end of this series, here are the links to the previous installments.
Counterrevolution: Introduction
Counterrevolution: The Holy Alliance
Counterrevolution: The National Movements